SR-71 Last Flight

[The Eagle's Nest]

Does anyone have any footage of the last SR-71 Blackbird flight held at
Edwards AFB Openhouse in 1998?

[[email protected]]

Mary Shafer > wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:11:44 GMT, "The Eagle's Nest"
> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any footage of the last SR-71 Blackbird flight held at
>> Edwards AFB Openhouse in 1998?
>
>Yes.
>
>Mary

Quite impressive...
--

-Gord.

[The Eagle's Nest]

Thank you, would you mind sharing it? I have composite SR-71 video from
NASA/Dryden but it does not cover the 98 Openhouse.

Looking for the Mach 3 flyover and landing.

Thank you,

Rob

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:11:44 GMT, "The Eagle's Nest"
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone have any footage of the last SR-71 Blackbird flight held at
> >> Edwards AFB Openhouse in 1998?
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >Mary
>
> Quite impressive...
> --
>
> -Gord.

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:25:48 GMT, "The Eagle's Nest"
> wrote:

> Thank you, would you mind sharing it? I have composite SR-71 video from
> NASA/Dryden but it does not cover the 98 Openhouse.

I'll ask the owner if a copy can be made.

> Looking for the Mach 3 flyover and landing.

He didn't think the fly over was that impressive and, seeing the video
and having seen a previous Mach 3.2 fly over with fuel dump, I kind of
agree. He has the take off, too.

Incidentally, I thought the last flight was at the Open House in '99,
not '98. Not that it matters, of course.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Bill Silvey]

"The Eagle's Nest" > wrote in message
news:gz2lb.19791$i92.14781@clgrps13
> Thank you, would you mind sharing it? I have composite SR-71 video
> from NASA/Dryden but it does not cover the 98 Openhouse.
>
> Looking for the Mach 3 flyover and landing.

A mach 3 flyover *and* landing? Dear god, the skidmarks!

;-)

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, Mary Shafer
> wrote:

> Incidentally, I thought the last flight was at the Open House in '99,
> not '98. Not that it matters, of course.
>
> Mary

I was there for the last flight of the SR-71, and I am pretty
sure that it was 1999. As I recall, they only flew on the Saturday
of the show, the SR-71 has a fuel leak problem, and had to scrub
on Sunday, then never flew again.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:15:53 GMT, "Bill Silvey"
> wrote:

>"The Eagle's Nest" > wrote in message
>news:gz2lb.19791$i92.14781@clgrps13
>> Thank you, would you mind sharing it? I have composite SR-71 video
>> from NASA/Dryden but it does not cover the 98 Openhouse.
>>
>> Looking for the Mach 3 flyover and landing.
>
>A mach 3 flyover *and* landing? Dear god, the skidmarks!
>
>;-)

Yea, and all the rubber left on the runway, too. :-)

Al Minyard

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:19:25 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
> wrote:

> I was there for the last flight of the SR-71, and I am pretty
> sure that it was 1999. As I recall, they only flew on the Saturday
> of the show, the SR-71 has a fuel leak problem, and had to scrub
> on Sunday, then never flew again.

Fast Eddie is still a little disappointed by that, I think. He was
supposed to fly the Sunday flight.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[JasiekS]

Uzytkownik "Mary Shafer" > napisal w wiadomosci
...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:25:48 GMT, "The Eagle's Nest"
> > wrote:
>
> > Thank you, would you mind sharing it? I have composite SR-71 video from
> > NASA/Dryden but it does not cover the 98 Openhouse.
>
> I'll ask the owner if a copy can be made.
>
> > Looking for the Mach 3 flyover and landing.
>
> He didn't think the fly over was that impressive and, seeing the video
> and having seen a previous Mach 3.2 fly over with fuel dump, I kind of
> agree. He has the take off, too.

Sorry, Mary, but what is the elevation of said NASA/Dryden AFB? As I recall
your posts SR-71 is SUBSONIC up to 10k ft or so.

>
> Incidentally, I thought the last flight was at the Open House in '99,
> not '98. Not that it matters, of course.
>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>

Regards
JasiekS (ex aerospace engineer, too)
Warsaw, Poland

[Mary Shafer]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:46:57 +0200, "JasiekS"
> wrote:

> Uzytkownik "Mary Shafer" > napisal w wiadomosci
> ...

> > He didn't think the fly over was that impressive and, seeing the video
> > and having seen a previous Mach 3.2 fly over with fuel dump, I kind of
> > agree. He has the take off, too.
>
> Sorry, Mary, but what is the elevation of said NASA/Dryden AFB? As I recall
> your posts SR-71 is SUBSONIC up to 10k ft or so.

No one said it wasn't. The fly overs at Mach 3+ were made at
altitude, not on the (2400-ft MSL) deck. That's why they dump fuel
when exactly overhead, so you can see them. Well, and so you can time
how long it takes the boom to reach the surface, too, except that you
don't actually hear the boom from when it's overhead but from when
it's on down the flight track.

Dryden isn't an AFB; it's NASA and is a tenant at Edwards AFB, which
(obviously) belongs to the USAF.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> Dryden isn't an AFB; it's NASA and is a tenant at Edwards AFB, which
> (obviously) belongs to the USAF.

How do you like the new 58?

[JasiekS]

Uzytkownik "Mary Shafer" > napisal w wiadomosci
...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:46:57 +0200, "JasiekS"
> > wrote:
>
> > Uzytkownik "Mary Shafer" > napisal w wiadomosci
> > ...
>
> > > He didn't think the fly over was that impressive and, seeing the video
> > > and having seen a previous Mach 3.2 fly over with fuel dump, I kind of
> > > agree. He has the take off, too.
> >
> > Sorry, Mary, but what is the elevation of said NASA/Dryden AFB? As I
recall
> > your posts SR-71 is SUBSONIC up to 10k ft or so.
>
> No one said it wasn't. The fly overs at Mach 3+ were made at
> altitude, not on the (2400-ft MSL) deck.

OK! I understand this. I've just imagined for the moment effect of low level
Mach 3+ overflight (IF structural limits allowed...). Mighty god!

> That's why they dump fuel
> when exactly overhead, so you can see them. Well, and so you can time
> how long it takes the boom to reach the surface, too, except that you
> don't actually hear the boom from when it's overhead but from when
> it's on down the flight track.

At Mach 3 cone half-angle of the shock wave should be approx. 19.5 deg. Let
we assume 10k ft for the flight level. In such circumstances I should hear
boom when the aircraft would be 28k ft away. Right?

>
> Dryden isn't an AFB; it's NASA and is a tenant at Edwards AFB, which
> (obviously) belongs to the USAF.
>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>

JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:01:56 +0200, "JasiekS"
> wrote:

> > That's why they dump fuel
> > when exactly overhead, so you can see them. Well, and so you can time
> > how long it takes the boom to reach the surface, too, except that you
> > don't actually hear the boom from when it's overhead but from when
> > it's on down the flight track.
>
> At Mach 3 cone half-angle of the shock wave should be approx. 19.5 deg. Let
> we assume 10k ft for the flight level. In such circumstances I should hear
> boom when the aircraft would be 28k ft away. Right?

Try 85,000 ft, not 10,000.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Jim Battista]

Mary Shafer > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:01:56 +0200, "JasiekS"
> > wrote:
>
>> > That's why they dump fuel
>> > when exactly overhead, so you can see them. Well, and so you
>> > can time how long it takes the boom to reach the surface, too,
>> > except that you don't actually hear the boom from when it's
>> > overhead but from when it's on down the flight track.
>>
>> At Mach 3 cone half-angle of the shock wave should be approx.
>> 19.5 deg. Let we assume 10k ft for the flight level. In such
>> circumstances I should hear boom when the aircraft would be 28k
>> ft away. Right?
>
> Try 85,000 ft, not 10,000.

Honest newbie question: can you see much of anything with the unaided
eye, or non-fancy binoculars?

--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 02:14:48 -0000, Jim Battista >
wrote:

> Mary Shafer > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:01:56 +0200, "JasiekS"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> > That's why they dump fuel
> >> > when exactly overhead, so you can see them. Well, and so you
> >> > can time how long it takes the boom to reach the surface, too,
> >> > except that you don't actually hear the boom from when it's
> >> > overhead but from when it's on down the flight track.
> >>
> >> At Mach 3 cone half-angle of the shock wave should be approx.
> >> 19.5 deg. Let we assume 10k ft for the flight level. In such
> >> circumstances I should hear boom when the aircraft would be 28k
> >> ft away. Right?
> >
> > Try 85,000 ft, not 10,000.
>
> Honest newbie question: can you see much of anything with the unaided
> eye, or non-fancy binoculars?

Sure. The plume of fuel that's being dumped and, maybe, a dark spot
at the head of the plume. On a clear day. If you're very keen-eyed.
Or imaginative.

Seriously, you could see the fuel plume and I think you could see the
aircraft planform in the LRO (Long-Range Optics) views, rather grainy
and fuzzy, or with very strong binoculars when it was close to the
facility, although I never tried with binoculars. There may well have
been a bit of seeing an SR-71 shape because we knew it was an SR-71,
too.

The fuel plume looks a bit like a loose contrail, by the way.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer